An Atlanta woman has been taken into custody after she made a Facebook post encouraging violence against white police officers.

According to WSB-TV, Ebony Dickens wrote the post, which called for “death to all white cops nationwide,” on Monday. Dickens added that she was thinking about going on a killing spree against white police, and wanted to kill at least 15 white police officers on Tuesday.

11 Alive reports that Atlanta police first noticed Dickens’ post, and determined the post had come from the East Point area. Following that discovery, Atlanta police notified East Point police, who received the assistance of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the NYPD in their arrest of Dickens.

Dickens has been charged with disseminating information related to terrorist acts, WSB-TV said. The FBI is also investigating the incident and may bring more charges against Dickens.

Tensions between police and African Americans across the country have escalated in the light of several officer-involved shootings of black men in recent months. In Baltimore, a full-scale riot has broken out in response to the death of a black man while in police custody.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Commentary – A joke by Lindsey Graham to the extent that he expects so much Jewish money due to his shameless shilling for Israel that he will have to appoint an “all-Jewish cabinet” says so much about the state of politics in America. Some Jewish journalists in fact have voiced their discomfort with Graham’s jokes because it could open people’s eyes to the link between Jewish money, the appointment of Jewish officials, and pro-Israel policies, as the first article below indicates.

The fact is that there is nothing unique about Graham’s relationship to Jewish donors. Bill Clinton filled his top three cabinet posts with Jews (Albright at State, Cohen at Defense, and Rubin and Summers at Treasury) in addition to keeping Greenspan as the head of the Fed, appointing Deutche as CIA Director, and Berger as National Security advisor. Would we expect anything different from Hillary, who expects to raise as much as two billion dollars from largely Jewish donors like Israeli media magnate Haim Saban.

And as the second article below shows, each of the Republican hopefuls, even Rand Paul, are lining up Jewish megadonors. This information is being reported in media outlets intended for Jews. Don’t expect Bill O’Reilly or Rachel Maddow to do segments on it, though. One thing that is facinating and telling about the second article is that it catalogues not just the big Jewish donors and Israel policies of the five leading Republican candidates, but also says their position on Immmigration, demonstrating that massive immigration is a Jewish-led policy.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), contemplating a presidential run, is catching flak on social media for the following excerpt from a Wall Street Journal interview:

On the biggest challenge facing his potential 2016 campaign:

“The means. If I put together a finance team that will make me financially competitive enough to stay in this thing…I may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding. [Chuckles.] Bottom line is, I’ve got a lot of support from the pro-Israel funding.”

Suggesting that “pro-Israel funding” may determine his choice of cabinet secretaries (as well as his policies) may make even his potential benefactors squirm just a little bit in light of the purposes to which real anti-Semites who believe “Jewish money” controls the U.S. government might put such a statement.

Good point.

Graham is not an anti-Semite. As Lobe and Clifton note, Graham’s responses were partly fueled by Riesling. I’d add that he cultivates a good ol’ boy’s reputation for the shocking bon mot. In the same interview, he dismissed Rand Paul’s outreach to “kids who smoke dope in their parents’ basement.”

As a candidate who spends a lot of time in Jewish company, Graham has probably been exposed to much self-deprecating humor of the “Wait, that’s the Elders of Zion on the phone” variety. Might make sense for Graham to leave such self-deprecation to the deprecated.

From the Times of Israel

Who are the Republican candidates’ Jewish donors?

A look at the patrons, and the policies, of three declared presidential contenders, as well as two likely ones

Aside from Democrat Hillary Clinton, three Republican candidates with reasonable chances at the nomination have declared and several others are on the cusp.The Republican Party says it’s been making inroads with Jewish voters, who traditionally have favored Democrats by 2-to-1 margins.

Here’s a rundown of the views of three declared Republican candidates — and two likely candidates — on issues of Jewish interest, and their connections to the community.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida.

Age: 43

Campaign status: Declared candidate

His Jewish backers: A principal backer is Norman Braman, a car dealership magnate who moved to Florida in 1994 after selling his stake in the NFL’s Philadelphia Eagles. A past president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, Braman has been close with Rubio since his meteoric rise through the Florida Legislature. Braman accompanied Rubio to Israel in 2010, just after his election to the US Senate. Rubio’s ties to the broader Jewish community also extend back to his career in the Florida state legislature, and communal professionals credit him with being accessible.

His views: Rubio has blasted President Barack Obama on Israel, saying in his April 13 campaign launch that the administration bears “hostility” toward Israel.

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded recognition of Israel as part of a final Iran nuclear deal, Rubio was quick to propose the demand as an amendment to a bill requiring congressional review of any Iran deal.

The drama that followed Rubio’s proposal, which the Obama administration declared a poison pill, is illustrative of Rubio’s tendency to move between extreme to moderate positions. He withdrew the amendment on April 14, the day the Senate Foreign Relations Committee considered the broader bill, which ultimately passed unanimously.

Similar back-and-forth characterizes his immigration record. Rubio helped shepherd comprehensive immigration reform through the Senate in 2013, but after it failed in the US House of Representatives, Rubio retreated to more hawkish positions popular with the Republican base, including tougher border security. He says the reform bill he once embraced was the right way to go at the time, but now say political realities dictate a piecemeal approach.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

Age: 44

Campaign status: Declared candidate

His Jewish backers: Last year, Cruz tapped Nicolas Muzin, a soft-spoken Orthodox Jew from South Carolina, as an adviser. Muzin is credited with helping catapult Sen. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina., the first black senator elected from the South since the 19th century, to a national career. Muzin has introduced Cruz to Orthodox Jewish funders, including telecommunications and energy magnate Howard Jonas, and staged events for him in fancy kosher eateries like Abigael’s on Broadway.

His views: Cruz talks a hard line on Israel, aligning himself with some of the Obama administration’s harshest critics. After Rabbi Shmuley Boteach advertised an upcoming panel discussion on Obama’s Iran policy in March with an ad that seemed to link National Security Adviser Susan Rice to the genocide in Rwanda, one of the featured speakers, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, dropped out, saying Boteach had crossed a line. Cruz, also a featured speaker, stayed in.

Cruz likes to ask the administration tough questions on Israel. He accused the Obama administration of playing politics with the Federal Aviation Authority during last year’s Gaza War, when the FAA stopped flights to Tel Aviv for a day or so because rockets had struck near the airport. Cruz said no such order was in place for Ukraine, although a missile had downed a plane there (in fact, there was such an order).

Cruz also has sought to distance himself from neoconservative hawks, arguing that his model is President Ronald Reagan, who Cruz said favored clearly defined objectives in any military action and opposed nation building.

Cruz shares with Rubio a biography of being born to Cuban refugees from the Castro regime. Unlike Rubio, he has maintained a consistently tough line on immigration, advocating blocking Obama judicial nominees until the president retreats on executive orders that have cleared a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky.

Age: 52

Campaign status: Declared candidate

His Jewish backers: Paul has cultivated Richard Roberts, an Orthodox Jew and major New Jersey philanthropist. In 2013, Roberts helped fund a tour of Israel for Paul and evangelical Christians. A year ago he led Paul on a tour of Lakewood, New Jersey’s sprawling Orthodox yeshiva, Beth Medrash Govoha, which Roberts supports. Roberts has suggested, however, that he favors Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has yet to formally declare his candidacy.

Paul also shares with Netanyahu a digital consultant, Harris Media in Austin, Texas. Vincent Harris, the firm’s CEO, led digital strategy in Netanyahu’s recent reelection campaign and is now chief digital strategist to Paul’s campaign.

His views: Paul’s father is the former Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican who ran several times for president on a libertarian platform that included cutting off aid to Israel. The elder Paul also was notorious for his broadsides against the pro-Israel community, and newsletters published under his name have been accused of veering into anti-Semitism, although he has denied authoring the content.

When Rand Paul ran for Senate in 2010, he would not return calls from Kentucky Jewish leaders asking for a meeting. At first, Paul seemed to mirror his father’s positions, telling CNN in an interview that he would include Israel in his pledge to cut off all foreign assistance.

Since then, Paul has been more open to Jewish outreach and has visited Israel. Republican Jews like to say his views on the country have “evolved”; he still counsels cuts in foreign assistance, but adds that these should be prioritized, with countries he deems hostile to US interests first on the list.

Paul counts Israel as a close US ally, and the sole focus of the Israel page on his campaign website is his bill to cut assistance to the Palestinian Authority precisely because of its parlous relations with Israel (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, notably, does not support the bill).

Pro-Israel groups remain wary of Paul in part because he is one of two Republicans in the Senate who will not back bills seeking greater congressional involvement in the Iran nuclear talks — the other is Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona.

Paul is a relative moderate in his party on immigration, favoring legal status short of citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

“People who seek the American dream are not bad people,” he said a year ago.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

Age: 47

Campaign status: Likely candidateFormer Florida Gov. Jeb Bush

His Jewish backers: Walker has yet to declare, but if and when he does, the New Jerseyan Roberts would appear to be in his camp. Walker has also been backed in his gubernatorial runs by Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate and Republican Jewish kingmaker. A Hanukkah greeting last year to a Jewish constituent was infamously signed “Molotov” — he meant “Mazel tov.”

His views: Walker has earned his conservative chops principally on the basis of his record as a governor facing down unions in a liberal state. He now wants to burnish his foreign policy credentials and traveled to London in February, but got demerits for dodging foreign policy questions. He says he wants to travel to Israel soon. His criticisms of how Obama has handled the Israel relationship and the Iran nuclear talks have been pointed in their language but vague in particulars.

On immigration, Walker has backed reforms that include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but more recently his focus has been on seeking to dismantle Obama’s executive orders that would provide such a path.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush

Age: 62

Campaign status: Likely candidate

His Jewish backers: Bush has been able to tap into a broad network of fundraisers who were loyal to the presidencies of his brother George W. and his father, George H.W. Among the former are Mel Sembler, a shopping mall magnate in Florida who backed Bush during his gubernatorial runs. In New York, equity billionaire Henry Kravis hosted a lucrative evening for Bush in February.

Bush also has Jewish George W. Bush cabinet members on his foreign policy team, including Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary, and Michael Mukasey, the ex-attorney general who has been notable in his post-Bush career for his strident criticism of what he depicts as the spread of radical Islam. More controversially, Bush takes advice from his father’s secretary of state, James Baker, who angered conservatives last month when he delivered a speech critical of Netanyahu at J Street’s annual conference. Bush has distanced himself from the speech, although not enough to please Adelson, who reportedly was “incensed” by Baker’s speech.

Bush’s rivalry with his one-time protégé Rubio and his closeness to Baker have put him in an odd position: He has the enthusiastic backing of some prominent Jewish GOP backers, like Sembler and Kravis, while others like Adelson and Rubio’s backer Braman are lining up to keep him from winning the GOP nod.

His views: Bush has been critical of how Obama has handled nuclear talks with Iran, blaming him for allowing differences with Israel over the talks to spill out into the open. He has visited Israel five times.

On immigration, Bush, who speaks fluent Spanish and whose wife, Columba, was born in Mexico, has been perhaps the most outspoken about embracing immigration reform and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He has made a point of forcefully making the case even in front of those groups most likely to oppose such reforms.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

• AHA refuses to run ad for tome on “special relationship” between United States, Israel.

By Ronald L. Ray —

Most people think of historians as quietbookworms, squirreled away in cornersof ancient libraries. Few recognizethe more radical side of theirprofession, however, which for severaldecades has pushed various racial, social andpolitical ideologies as the yardstick of historical interpretation.

Take, for example, the American Historical Association(AHA), the largest organization of professionalhistorians in America. Claiming to “serve theinterests of the entire discipline of history,” it also issuesstatements on everything from a jaywalking arrestto opposing Georgia’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Now, they have censored advertisingfor a new history book about the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship.”

On April 4, 2015, AMERICAN FREE PRESS spoke withMs. Weir about her new book and the shocking experiencethat resulted when she attempted to placea paid advertisement for it in one of the publications of the AHA.

Against Our Better Judgment is a meticulouslyresearched work, with hundreds of footnotes andnumerous primary and reliable secondary sources—many of which are now out of print. A non-governmentalorganization rigorously checked the factsbefore publication and, although self-published, thebook has been highly praised—even by former StateDepartment officials.

The book tries to answer the question, “Whywould Israel be considered an ally of the U.S.?” Afterall, notes Weir, it is a barren country with no naturalresources to speak of. Surely the answer would be ofhistorical interest to many, especially as a key to understandingthe present conflict. As the author foundout, the State Department actually long considered Israel a detriment to our national interests.

But Zionist Jews—some already or soon thereafterwealthy—organized massive fundraising andpropaganda campaigns well before 1948. They deliberatelyco-opted Christiansinto their schemes and engagedin heavy-handed pressuretactics against non-ZionistJews, the media and politicians.And after the illegal declarationof the state of Israel,the Zionists made sure Americansnever learned about thewidespread persecution andmurder of Palestinian Christiansor the destruction of Christian holy places.

One would think a paid advertisementfor such a seminalbook would be welcomedby the AHA, but they refused to accept it, withoutexplanation. Ms. Weir’s follow-up inquiries led Dr.James Grossman, executive director of the AHA, toclaim the book “does not fall within the scope of themission of the AHA,” is “advocacy not scholarship”and was not “peer reviewed” or “reviewed by the mainstream press.”

Ms. Weir refuted these claims in an article on thewebsite “Counterpunch,” pointing out that Grossmanand the executive committee have not read thebook. But they have advertised books and printedarticles from “mainstream” sources that containedglaring errors, including writings about Israel. Theobjection of “self-publishing” from Grossman wasturned back by proof the AHA previously advertised (page 19) Michael Swanson’s self-published The War State.

Ms. Weir even joined the AHA.

“I am very interested in history,” she told AFP.

She began posting in AHA web forums aboutthe advertising refusal. She received some “verythoughtful responses” from both sides. But Grossmanhimself posted a response she characterizedas “rude” and “hostile.” Moreover, said Ms. Weir,the partisans of Israel “very quickly stoop to characterassassination, rather than discussing the factualcontent.”

Ms. Weir characterized the advertising rejectionas “very puzzling. I don’t think they have a valid reasonfor rejecting [it]. . . . In a way, it is a restraint oftrade. Some people can sell their books, and somecannot.” She saw the decision as contraryto principles of free speech andacademic freedom, restricting accessto the “marketplace of ideas.” Shesaid the “our journal/our decision”justification is a “ ‘might makes right’ argument” and is not “principled.”

AFP also attempted to interviewGrossman. He was unavailable for atelephone interview but agreed to answerour written questions. However,his reply to nine questionsabout refusing advertising forAgainst Our Better Judgment wasterse: “The AHA has no comment onthese questions.” No summary ofAHA’s view; no statement about academicfreedom, free speech or restraintof trade in relationship totheir decision and no defense againstMs. Weir’s incisive criticisms of theiractions. There was also no answer as to what influence,if any, resulted from pro-Israel, pro-Jewish oranti-Palestinian bias or prejudice—although a disproportionatenumber of executive committee members appear to be Jewish based on their names.

For her part, Ms.Weir concludes that she believesit is important to have the facts from both sides about the U.S. and Israel versus Palestine.

“One thing that motivates my work is oppositionto racism and discrimination,” she said. She points to a United Nations resolution calling Zionism a form of racism.

“Israel is based on discrimination,” she added.

Her goal—apparently not shared by the AHA—isto bring that truth to Americans, and to get the U.S. out of its destructive foreign entanglement with Israel.

- See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=23976#sthash.Ai6lGoZE.dpuf

The Libtards over at Huffpo just released a video about whites becoming a minority. It’s meant to be satirical about white guilt but actually shows why we need an ethnostate. Why would any people look forward to what they say is going to happen to them? Thanks Huffpo for white nationalism’s greatest recruitment video.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Dr. Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents Publishingdeclared on his website recently that his project is “under siege” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which—along with other leftist outfits—is putting pressure on PayPal and Amazon to cease permitting him to raise funds and sell books.

Dr. Johnson relays in his article that Heidi Beirich “has been writing letters to Amazon.com and PayPal to get them to stop doing business with Counter-Currents. The SPLC wants to put us out of business because they fear the ideas that we advocate.” He also notes that just days after the Washington Post ran an article about the matter, Amazon shut down Counter-Currents’ Amazon Affiliate Marketing account, which earned Dr. Johnson approximately $6,000.00 per year when viewers of his website purchased goods from Amazon after visiting that website.

A simple search on the Hatewatch blog of the SPLC shows that the SPLC has attempted to shame Amazon and PayPal into ending relations with rightist entities a number of times now. On January 8, 2015, the SPLC yelped that Amazon permits Counter-Currents and VDARE to earn money by referring viewers of their websites to Amazon; on April 1, 2015, the SPLC yapped that PayPal was not terminating the accounts of organizations of which the SPLC had previously complained; and on March 21, 2011, the SPLC whined that Amazon does not pander pornography but dares to disseminate books written by political dissidents. For the last one, the SPLC took vehement offense to the mere availability for sale of my purely fictional novel, White Apocalypse, which was praised by no less than five Ph. D. scholars, while The Occidental Dissent described it as being “A thrilling and intelligent story with epic ramifications.”

The SPLC’s attacks on our organizations’ revenues via Amazon and PayPal is not the first time they have attempted to interfere with the pecuniary interests or liberties of those whom they disagree politically. For example:

The issue now presented is whether the SPLC can be sued for interfering with the pecuniary interests of those whom they find politically disagreeable. Unfortunately, the answer is not simple due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Tortious interference with contract or business expectancy is a tort existing per the common law, and although most states treat it in a similar manner, there are some nuances from state-to state. As such, an analysis would have to be undertaken on a case-by-case basis by a lawyer to determine whether a claim invoking it would be valid. Generally, however, the following would need to be proven by the plaintiff: (1) there existed a contact or future business relationship; (2) the tortfeasor had knowledge of the contract or future business relationship; (3) a breach of the contract or a termination of the future business potential occurred; (4) the breach or termination was caused by the tortfeasor through unjustified instigation; and (5) the plaintiff suffered damages due to the breach of the contract or termination of the future business potential.

The elements of the tort are mostly easily understandable by laymen; however, for purposes of whether an instigation was unjustified, the plaintiff can establish this element of the tort with (1) evidence of a per se wrongful act or (2) a lawful act committed with malice and without justification for the purpose of invading the contractual rights of the plaintiff. Factors to be analyzed for this element include: (1) the nature of the tortfeasor’s conduct; (2) the nature of the plaintiff’s interest; (3) the social utility of the plaintiff’s and the tortfeasor’s respective interests; and (4) the proximity of the tortfeasor’s conduct to the interference.

The claim of tortious interference, however, has successfully been used against the Simon Wiesenthal Center in the past. In McCalden v. California Library Assoc., 955 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir. 1990), David McCalden, a historical revisionist, entered into a contract with a public library to rent exhibit space to display materials about controversial subjects and a room to hold a discussion. The Simon Wiesenthal Center’s and American Jewish Committee’s representatives were alleged by McCalden to have contacted library officials to inform them that should the exhibit space and room be used by McCalden, a disruption would occur. The City of Los Angeles passed a unanimous resolution to request that the library not permit McCalden to have his exhibit or room; the Los Angeles Police Department informed the library’s official in charge that it had received threats against his life if McCalden was permitted to use the library’s facilities; and the Simon Wiesenthal Center rented a room immediately adjacent to the one to be used by McCalden, and McCalden maintained that this was done so that leftist agitators would be in position to disrupt his program. Due to the pressure, the library cancelled McCalden’s exhibit display and room reservation.

Instead of blogging about the transgressions that had been perpetrated against him, McCalden hired an attorney and went straight to federal court. McCalden alleged breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and state-specific and federal causes of action related to his constitutional rights being violated. The trial court judge ruled in the defendants’ favor, and instead of blogging about his defeat in court, he appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—which is notoriously left-wing.

At the time of the appeal, McCalden had passed away, and his estate—managed by his widow, Viviana McCalden—continued to seek vindication. Even in death McCalden would not acquiesce. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the trial court was incorrect to dismiss the tortious interference and breach of contract claims for procedural and substantive reasons that are outside the scope of this article. Noteworthy, however, about the appellate case is that the Simon Wiesenthal Center attempted to raise the First Amendment as a defense. Said the Ninth Circuit in pertinent part to this futile effort: “Privately communicated threats have traditionally been punishable where they have ‘a reasonable tendency to produce in the victim a fear that the threat will be carried out.’” McCalden at 1222 (quoting Wurtz v. Risley, 719 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir. 1983). The Ninth Circuit further opined,

That appellees [(Simon Wiesenthal Center)] were engaging in protected expressive activities at the same time and to the same end as the alleged threats of violence does not immunize appellees from liability for the alleged threats. In Claiborne, the Court held that NAACP official Charles Evers could not be held liable for a public speech, but the Court stated unequivocally that individuals who “engaged in violence or threats of violence … may be held responsible for the injuries that they caused.” Claiborne, 458 U.S. at 926, 102 S.Ct. at 3432. Nor does the fact that appellees were politically motivated immunize them from liability if they in fact engaged in threats of violence. The boycotters who threatened and engaged in violence in Claiborne were no less politically motivated than Charles Evers whose public speech the Supreme Court held to be protected by the First Amendment. Id.; see alsoRankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 386-87, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 2898, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987) (“a statement that amounted to a threat to kill the President would not be protected by the First Amendment”). Appellant [(McCalden)] may not be able to support the allegations in his complaint, but those allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. (Ibid.)

After the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Simon Wiesenthal Center would not be able to worm its way out of liability short of a trial occurring, it petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the appellate court’s ruling. In Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies v. McCalden, 504 U.S. 957 (1992), the Supreme Court refused to review the case, and after this occurred, the Simon Wiesenthal Center settled out of court with McCalden’s widow for an undisclosed sum of money.

What distinguishes the SPLC’s antics from those of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s in the McCalden case is that the SPLC is not overtly threatening when it tries to cause political dissidents to suffer pecuniary injury. The alleged threatening nature of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s actions is what permitted the Ninth Circuit to rule that the First Amendment could not be used by them as a shield insofar as threats of physical violence are outside the scope of that constitutional amendment.

Irrespective of whether the First Amendment applies, states differ as to whether truth is an absolute defense to the claim of tortious interference. Courts have frequently stated that it is a matter for the factfinder to decide on a case-by-case basis insofar as the unique facts at issue will determine whether the interference was privileged as a matter of right. See, e.g.,Krystkowkiak v. W.O. Brisben Companies, Inc., 90 P.3d 859, 864-65 (Colo. 2004) (“The First Amendment will not protect petitioning activity that is a sham, undertaken to harass an opponent rather than obtain relief from the government. … To be protected, petitioning activity must legitimately be aimed at obtaining favorable government action. … Those who exploit the inevitable delays, costs and inconveniences of the government process to punish their adversaries may not avail themselves to the First Amendment.”) (Citations omitted.)

The Anti-Defamation League has also been sued for tortious interference—albeit unsuccessfully. In Augustine v. Anti-Defamation League of B’Nai B’Rith, 75 Wis.2d 207 (Wis. 1977), the ADL successfully exerted moral pressure on a radio station to terminate a radio show host’s employment for permitting national socialists to appear on his program, use racial epithets, and not utilize the “panic button” to censor their commentary or to not provide a disclaimer at the end of the show that the opinions of the guests are not those of the radio station. In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the exerting of moral pressure is privileged per the First Amendment.

Daryle Lamont Jenkins of the leftist One Peoples Project and Jeffrey Imm, however, were successfully sued by the late David Yeagley for tortiously interfering with his contract to speak at an American Renaissance conference. Jenkins and Imm were accused of using threats of violence to shut down the conference; neither raised a First Amendment defense, and Imm likely settled out of court—the case was dismissed against Imm not long after it was filed—while Jenkins was ordered to pay $50,000.00 after Yeagley’s attorneys successfully filed a motion for summary judgment.

The general rule of thumb, it appears, is that when illegal force is threatened or used by a political organization to successfully interfere with the pecuniary interests or rights of a political opponent, the victim can sue for tortious interference and the First Amendment clearly cannot be raised as an affirmative defense. However, when a political organization merely uses moral pressure to successfully interfere with the pecuniary interests or rights of a political opponent, whether the victim can successfully sue for tortious interference would be determined by the facts unique to the case, as well as the substantive law of the state in which the case is being litigated.

Further, the nature of the relationship between the third-party and political dissident that is targeted for interference would be highly relevant: if the SPLC or some other organization were to attempt to interfere with a political dissident’s non-political source of income for purely punitive reasons, that likely would not be protected by the First Amendment. Lastly, whether the political dissident is a public or limited public figure would also be highly relevant, since private figures enjoy an expectation of privacy.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, defamation actions have successfully been utilized in the past by victims of the SPLC and ADL. For example, Prof. Guenter Lewy sued the SPLC in 2008 for having libeled him, and the SPLC settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money and issued a public apology and retraction. Likewise, the ADL was sued for having defamed the Quigleys, a Roman Catholic couple, after their Jewish neighbors got into a sparring match with them over an extremely insignificant dispute; after a four-week jury trial in federal court, the plaintiffs were awarded a judgment in the amount of $10.5 million—which was nearly a quarter of the ADL’s annual budget at the time.

If one is wronged by an organization of “social justice warriors” on account of one’s political views, it would be advisable to consult in a timely manner with an attorney in the jurisdiction in which the injury occurred. Lawsuits have been successfully brought against such organizations in the past, and will certainly be successfully brought against them in the future—especially since the left hands of these organizations many times do not know what the extreme left hands are doing. (The torts of negligent retention, supervision, and training will need to be discussed another day.)

Instead of bringing our grievances to Internet forums, it could very well be better to bring them to court. The Quigleys, Prof. Lewy, Yeagley, and McCalden would not beg to differ.

Kyle Bristow is an attorney licensed to practice law in Michigan and Ohio, and he has filed two amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC: Brief of Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC, as Amici Supporting the Appellants, DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014) (No. 14-1341) (Arguing that same-sex marriage is not a right recognized by the Western legal tradition) and Brief of Traditionalist Youth Network, LLC, as Amici Supporting the Appellants, Kolbe v. O’Malley, __ F.3d __ (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-1945) (Arguing that a ban on military-style weapons is unconstitutional). His website can be viewed at www.KyleBristow.com.